2018 PLP 69 (CLCN)

Laws Cited

Representation

• Muhammad Zaman Zaur for Petitioner.
• Muhammad Suleman Dahri for Respondent No.3.
• 2. It is inter alia, contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties; and, that the impugned judgments and, decrees passed by the learned Courts below are illegal which may be set-aside.
• 3. Learned advocate for the respondent No.3 has mainly contended that the petitioner Dr. Aamir Ali Khan, who has been earning handsome amount from his clinic and so also from his job; even has failed to provide maintenance to his minor daughter baby Javeria; and, that the petitioner instead of complying with the decree and the orders passed by the courts including this court has been making attempts to protract the proceedings. He, therefore, prays that the petition may be dismissed with costs.
• 4. Learned A.A.G. has supported the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondent No.3 and prays that the petition may be dismissed.
• 6. From a perusal of the record it would be seen that admittedly petitioner Dr. Aamir Ali Khan married with the respondent Mst. Aliya Sehar on 19.10.2010 at Hyderabad and out of this wedlock one female child namely Babi Javeria was born, who is residing with her mother respondent Mst. Aliya Sehar; earlier the petitioner, per his, own admission was paying interim maintenance of Rs.5000/= per month for baby Javeria to the respondent in view of the order passed by the trial Court. It is petitioner's own case coupled with his admissions in evidence that respondent Mst. Aliya Sehar had left his house on 14.11.2010 when she conceived her child and then his daughter baby Javeria was born at Agha Khan Hospital at Hyderabad on 25.2.2011; the petitioner has not paid maintenance to the respondent Mst. Aliya Sehar since 14.11.2010 i.e. the date of her leaving the house of the petitioner or having been ousted from the petitioner's house; one day prior to the marriage, the petitioner's brothers Asif and Sami brought the dowry articles of respondent Mst. Aliya Sehar at his house. Moreover, during the proceedings before the trial court, the petitioner had taken self destructive and contradictory stances, such as in his written statement his version, as is reflected from para No.2 of his written statement, was that dowry articles were brought back by the parents of respondent No.3 (the plaintiff) with mutual consent of both the parties as the elders of both the families settled the matter outside the court and on such settlement the petitioner returned the dowry articles to respondent No.3, however, during his examination-in-chief, the petitioner has not deposed that he returned the dowry articles to respondent No.3 in private settlement and whereas, in his cross-examination on a question the petitioner stated that it was settled that respondent's dowry articles will remain in the possession of the petitioner, but astonishingly to further questions, the petitioner in the same breath admitted that dowry articles, which are admitted by him, are lying at his house, which adversely reflects upon the petitioner, more so, when nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to prove that he had returned the dowry articles to the respondent. Furthermore, the learned trial court after evaluating the evidence brought on record partly decreed the suit in respect of the Dowry articles except articles shown at serial Nos.23 and 24 in the list Ex:28-A, allowing amount of Rs.50,000/= (fifty thousand) as a delivery and medical expenses etc. as against Rs.1,20,000/= (one hundred twenty thousand) claimed by respondent No.3; maintenance amount for respondent No.3 for the relevant period as shown in the impugned judgment of the trial court and amount of Rs.5000/= (five thousand) per month for the petitioner's own female child namely baby Javeria, who is now aged of seven years and is school going girl and such amount of maintenance, allowed by the trial court, in the wake of rising the costs of living, in my humble view, is rather on lesser side. The learned appellate Court also after reappraisal of the evidence brought on record, dismissed the appeal being Family Appeal No.09 of 2016 filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 21.09.2016 and decree dated 26.9.2016. On a query learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the petitioner has not provided the maintenance etc. for the minor since her birth, which also adversely reflects upon the petitioner, who needless to say, by dragging respondent No.3 here and there has not only been increasing her miseries and agonies, but thereby he has also put his own female child in hardships and sufferings since her birth despite being duty bound to provide maintenance to her and such conduct of the petitioner, who is a doctor by profession, even not sparing his own child that too a female child is noted with dismay. Manifestly, the petitioner by filing this petition has attempted to delay the satisfaction of the decree passed by the learned competent courts blow against him, and to deprive the respondent No.3 and baby Javeria, who is not other, but is his own female child, of the fruits of decree, infringing her right of maintenance as long as he could, and in view of such contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioner, imposing costs would patently be justified in this petition, which from face of record is completely lacking bona fide on the part of petitioner, more particularly, when the petitioner despite specific directions for depositing entire decreetal amount with the Additional Registrar of this Court latest by 15.7.2017, vide order dated 20.6.2017, has failed to do so and in such view of the matter the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees, passed by the Courts below, attracting exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree